Reply from Candidate John Persak

1. No. I agree
that we need ADUs and DADUs that can provide affordable housing and
build wealth for the middle class, and that the rules restricting these
should be loosened. However, an effective and categorical up-zone of SF
areas means homeowners will be pressured or enticed to sell, which will
place profits into the hands of developers, and overturn 30 years of
neighbor driven community planning. It will fundamentally alter these
neighborhoods.

2.
No. I believe that we have the capacity in our current urban villages,
in conjunction with the loosening of rules for ADUs/DADUs, to meet the
needs of population growth and the demand for more affordable housing.
Seattle has already absorbed a disproportionate amount of growth in King
County. Transit Oriented Development in practice leads to
displacement, and we need to link up our existing communities with
transit in a way that works for Seattle's unique topography and
community needs--not on a disconnected ideology.

3.
I believe the rush to eliminate parking is inspired by the drive to
deregulate zoning very quickly, and doing so will impact each community
in a different way. That is why I believe people who live in these areas
need to be part of the discussion before any policy decisions are made
or ordinances passed. One community recently has successfully sued the
city on this issue and many other aggrieved communities may follow.
There has been no adequate inquiry or planning as to how other modes of
transportation will absorb these changed mobility needs. The proposal to
reduce parking requirement exacerbates an already existing and complex
problem without examination.

4.
I believe that some height increases may be necessary to lessen the
demand and impact on areas of the city where up-zoning would be a
detriment to the livability of the neighborhood. However, I reject the
notion that increasing supply will result in affordability. The basis
for this strategy is called "supply side economics"
and has been debunked repeatedly by mainstream economists and by the
practical effects of "Reaganomics" which has jumped off wealth disparity
for the last 35 years. The HALA inspired incentives to build in
affordable units are weak and provide little recourse or leverage,
should developers not collectively fulfill their obligation. Instead,
market restraint in the interests of low/no income earners will produce
affordable housing. The lack of fees assessed in exchange for 6,000
units (the "grand bargain") seems to evoke an economic concept known as
"trickle down", which has also been a historical failure for solving
economic inequality, and it will fail here.

5.
The Mayor's recommendations do not do enough, and in some instances
actually would do damage. There are too many built in incentives for
upscale development that cancel out the policies that may encourage
affordable housing. The proposed up-zones/code changes would go into
effect sooner and have impacts sooner, than any or all of the
corresponding policies that would ameliorate the upward pressure on
housing costs--if any or all of them were adopted at all. Once
developers have their needs met there is no incentive for them to give
back, and the people of Seattle, or even city council, will have little
leverage to make any demands after the fact. If the HALA report was
realistic about true affordability, the requirement would be to
implement ALL of the measures to preserve and build affordable housing
and to keep neighborhoods livable, *before* any kind of deregulation
occurred for developer interests.